Ken's Den 30.1.2004

What time is it?

I was talking to one of my friends the other day and we hit upon a subject that I am very interested in. We started talking about what we thought TIME was. He asked me what I thought it was, he said, do you think time is a force or a dimension. I said that I didn't feel it was either of those. I told him that I think Time is an abstract idea created by man for his endvor to become more responsible and perhaps even repressed. I will give reasons why I do not believe time to be a force nor a dimension (which I will double also as the idea of time being a tapestry and as a continuum). Then I shall give my theory.

Time as an A Posteriori* tapestry that weaves everything within it's great quilt though seems like a good theory, it breaks down in a few areas. One of the areas now is a little science fiction, but to me, it is because time is not a posteriori what so ever, that this idea is indeed science fiction and will always be. If time were a dimension it would not be very difficult to travel different speeds through it. Indeed, time travel would be, perhaps, an everyday thing. Even if you needed a certain mode of transportation to travel though it at a different speed then one second at a time, we would most certainly know about it, for people would come back and forth, we, in a sense, would have never had a time when time travel did not exist. For people would have used it to go hither and thither across the tapestry. Yes, strange people in the Ozarks do testify to have seen people that have traveled in time and may even say they have too, but of course we aren't going to believe them are we?

Also, something else that seems to have a hole in this theory, where is the present? If time is a dimension, a continuum, or tapestry, then where is the present? As it is, in this theory, there is a past, future and present. However, is there a present? A present tense in a system that talks about a past and a future could not exist. It is like this, as we wait for the present to come we dwell in the past, but before the present can get here it is already in the past. Thus, we missed it. Not being in the past anymore, because then we would still be waiting for it. And also, sense we would have to give the present an a posteriori because it is a part of time, then we have to also give it at least an ideal form, and giving it a form makes it at the very least an ideal substance, and two substances cannot take up one space. A cannot interfere with A's spot nor can B, C, ect.. So a present cannot exist, because it would be too much of a paradox within itself. So, that leaves us with a past and future. Well, how can they indeed exist? Where is the future, and what happen to the past? A future as soon as it happens would become a past, and we cannot live in a past because it has already happen. We cannot live in what has already past, for we are still here. And we cannot live in what is about to happen because it hasn't happen yet. Also, once again, we have the problem with B trying to exist within A's spot. When the future happens and becomes past within the same moment, how can it exist in the same spot? That cannot logically happen. Logically speaking, a dimension or tapestry of time cannot exist for the paradoxes would force it to fail.

All right, now what about a force? Can Time can be a force like wind, gravity, weather, ect? Perhaps, however, here would be some problems with this. Once, time travel couldn't exist. Ok, I don't think there is anyway that time travel could exist what so ever. Because to time travel one would have be able to go back and forth within time. If Time was a force likened to a river as it is oft called, then that means it is only going one direction, so there would be no past or present. It would be constantly "slipping into the future" like what Steve Miller, says. Now, this is going to get confusing, even worse than before. So, first I will try and explain why a present nor past cannot exist within this theory. The Past cannot exist because we are constantly going into a future, so even if it did exist it wouldn't matter to us because we could never ever get back to it. (Thus, no traveling back in time) Ok, here is why though that the past cannot exits. The future would happen, and make that into a past, though again we would be dealing with a paradox of two objects trying to exist in the same space. And so again, we cannot have a present because the future would have happened and because a past before it could become a present. As I am thinking, a past could exist, though not logically because of the too many objects in one space issue. But even if a past did exist in this theory, it wouldn't matter for we could never reach it again. One couldn't even talk about it all that much, it would be foolish to say, let's go back to the past, even though we are being forced into the future at all times. If there is no present because it is becoming the past as soon as it happens, and we cannot live in a past because we are being forced into the future, then we can only live in a future, but if that was the case we could never know what was going on because we live in a tense that hasn't happened yet. Though you are right, half the time no one knows what is going on anyway.

Another hole in this theory is the idea of time movement. If we are always being forced into the future, then which way is time really flowing? Is it flowing toward a past, or is it flowing into a future. Because, if we are being forced into the future, time has to be coming backwards in order to hit us. If time is flowing in a future direction and we are going into a furture direction, then are we really making any progress in time? It would be like you tring to get into a car that is going the same direction that you are going how would you catch it, unless it is going slower that you are walking, then why even bother getting into the car? What then, would be the point of time going into the future, if it is going slower than us? We would be moving faster than time, which I suppose would mean we were living in a past future. Because we would still be in time, but it would be catching up with us. We would be in the future because time is slower than us but then there could never be a past because it would never happen for us. And if time was going the same speed we were, then we wouldn't be able to talk about time since we would never know it's passing.

Does that mean we would be going one direction and the future going another? We are heading into the future, while the future is heading into the past. If that was the case then it would either all be future or it would all be past. But we cannot live in a past and future, we live in a present that cannot happen within this theory. For if we were headed in one direction (the future) and the future was heading in another direction (the past) then you cannot have a future, because it is the past, and you cannot have a past because it would be a future. it would have to be one or the other, and either way we couldn't live in it. That whole is time a future or a past is a brain scratcher. Hmm, I might come back to that sometime even though I don't believe in it, it does make for an interesting idea.

Well this is getting rather long, so I will now talk about what I believe time to be. Time to me seems that the only way it could exist would be an a priori* existence; only within the mind. So, there is no actual past, or future, there would only be a present, but that word wouldn't need to be used either because there is no reason for it. If there is no past or future, then all you would have is a present, and thus, the word doesn’t need to be used since it is the only true tense. Time that we have is just based on relative physical things that happen. For instance we have a day and night because the earth turns around the sun, well on other planets their day and nights are a lot longer or shorter depending on how fast the planet revolves. Same with a year, how fast does it orbit the sun is our year, well, other planets go faster and slower around the sun too. So, that couldn't be used to measure time if it excited in a continuum, after all it would have to be more uniformed than that. What about people aging you might suggest. Well yes, people age, but that is just another physical thing that means not that time exists, but that physical things happen. That is rather relative also, I mean, when I am fifty I might look like I am ninety years old, and you might hit fifty and not look a day over thirty, so how can you use that to show that time exists? But, now we need something like what could be called time in order to become responsible or to do anything in the society in which we live. If you want to hold a meeting you are going to have to use something to make sure people show up and congregate together. However, that doesn't make time either. So time itself doesn’t exist, just an idea of time. An idea that we use to measure when sometime starts and ends. It is nothing that we can indeed experience, just something that we use to make our lives a little easier. I am sure that ancient people didn't view time as one might think, or that animals view time as something that exists.

Also, if time existed on an a posteriori existence we would always know what time it was, because we would be living in and experiencing it at all 'times' thus we wouldn't really need clocks, just like we don't need anything to tell us that there is gravity or wind, because we can experience them. Thus, I have to say that time as we know it is only has an a priori existence that exists only within our heads.

*A Posteriori means after the fact. it is an idea or proposition that is experienced. A Priori, means before the fact. it is an idea or porp that is not experiences but only from the mind.